Kemron and Immunex in the treatment of AIDS
Interview with Dr. Abdul Alim Muhammad
On Kemron and Immunex in the Treatment of AIDS
The following interview with Dr. Abdul Alim Muhammad was conducted for New
Federalist by Debra Hanania Freeman during the last week in July. Dr.
Muhammad, a leader in the Nation of Islam, has been doing pioneering treatment
of AIDS at his Washington, D.C. Abundant Life Clinic, using treatments he
became aware of on a visit to Kenya--treatments he described in an earlier
interview which appeared in New Federalist on Feb. 17 and March 2, 1992.
- * * * -
{Q:} September 1991 was the first that we heard in any kind of real detail
of this new treatment that you brought back with you from Kenya. And really,
at that time, aside from the work that Barbara Justice was doing in New York,
most Americans had never heard of Kemron or Immunex or anything else. You
introduced it. It's now less than a year later. What's happened since then?
The Abundant Life Clinic is treating people. Tell us a little bit about how
many people you've treated and the results that you now have gotten.
{A:} First of all, let me thank you for coming back the second time. I
appreciate the original interview that appeared in your publication. I think
it did quite a lot of good in advancing this cause, in informing people of
what we consider to be the best news in this 12-year epidemic caused by HIV.
Now in the last 10 or 11 months, we have made significant progress in many
areas. Number one, we have succeeded in getting information out to the general
public, so that many people today have heard of Kemron and Immunex. They know
that it exists. Some in certain areas are quite well informed about this
treatment modality. Second of all, we have succeeded in educating quite a
number of practicing physicians. We now have the Abundant Life Clinic HIV
Alternative Treatment and Research Group, which is composed right now of 70
health care professionals, some of whom are active MDs in clinical practice
treating HIV patients with this medication.
So it's available to patients in, at last count, was 10 American cities,
and that number is expanding every week. That network altogether has under
treatment more than 500 patients in many places around the country.
The network now extends to Mexico, where we have a number of patients under
treatment; and also we've made some inroads recently, in the Caribbean. We met
with people recently from Co@afte d'Ivoire [Ivory Coast], West Africa, and
we've had some interest expressed from people in Ghana. So I think that what's
happening is that the medication is bouncing back from North America to
Africa, the land of its origin.
Thirdly, we've made a considerable advancement in the political area of
AIDS. People in the medical establishment, the people at the AIDS Clinical
Trial Group, the National Institutes of Allergies and Infectious Diseases, the
National Institutes of Health people, the so-called AIDS establishment--they
are now more aware than ever that if they don't get their act together, so to
speak, there are people who are quite willing and able to act independently of
them, who will get the word out. So I think we're forcing the issue, and I
think that it's quite likely in the near future that these government agencies
will have to respond. We hope that they will respond by initiating clinical
studies. Quite obviously, recently, they responded in a negative fashion, by
issuing a very shallow criticism of the use of Alpha-Interferon--this was an
HHS [Department of Health and Human Services] report that came out maybe two
months ago.
Fourthly, a major advance occurred in Pomona, Calif., where a black man who
is also a surgeon, James Parker, developed a very inexpensive, highly accurate
HIV test, a test for both strains of the virus, I and II, costing less than
$10. It gives results in about five minutes. With this test kit it is now
possible to conceivably do mass screening in our communities here in the
United States and throughout the world. We envision a time when we will
literally take tens of thousands of people to places like Haiti, Brazil, and
Africa, and literally go through the countryside into the villages, the towns,
and the cities, testing people and then administering treatment. This is an
enormous task, but it's one that we cannot shrink from, because the lives of
tens of millions of people are at stake.
So I think those four major areas mark our progress. We're at a crucial
point now, where what's necessary is for us to get access to the necessary
resources, to take this to the next stage of development.
The Role of the Clinic
{Q:} Here in the District [of Columbia], where most of your patients are
located, we have two things going on. We have a very immediate crisis around
the disease with Washington, D.C. distinguishing itself as the city in the
United States with the highest concentration per population of AIDS victims.
And it does appear that the local health establishment is now looking very
closely at this. We're all aware of the fact that the public health
commissioner here in the District has visited the clinic.
How do you see this? You've treated about 200 people here. What are your
results? Are you satisfied with your results?
{A:} Well, we've treated here about 140 people, approximately, and our
results with that relatively small number have been good. We are in the
process of tabulating our initial data to be able to say precisely how good,
good is; but my feeling is that we get a positive response in over 90% of the
cases. Only those patients who have extremely far advanced disease, those who
have Karposi's sarcoma or underlying carcinomas, do not seem to do well. But
all other categories of patients seem to respond very well. Those who have
symptoms seem to lose those symptoms in a matter of weeks; those who are as
yet asymptomatic seem not to progress in the disease.
Incidentally, we've been invited to present our preliminary findings at the
National Medical Association meeting next month in San Francisco. So we look
forward to being able to do that.
Dr. Akhtar, who is the D.C. Health Commissioner, has visited the clinic.
He has received the information that we're able to give him at this point with
a very open mind; and I think that he, along with others in the political
leadership of Washington, D.C., are well aware of the devastating implications
of this pandemic that's sweeping the District of Columbia. So we look forward
to further cooperation with him. We hope to enter into a partnership with the
District of Columbia in doing the clinical research and experimental treatment
with these medications.
{Q:} Your preliminary results would tend to indicate--and correct me if I'm
wrong--that you get better results when you're able to catch the patient early
on. That would make a very compelling argument for testing.
How do you see the prospects in that area? Do you see any movement
nationally toward increasing testing, and is this one of the things that
you're in discussion about, with the network?
{A:} Unfortunately, I don't see any indication that the federal government
agencies are any more inclined to widespread testing today than they were
yesterday, and obviously, this is an insane policy that can have only one
result, which is to further spread the epidemic throughout the population.
However, as I indicated earlier, we now have access to a very inexpensive
test that can be administered in an office, in a home, or literally, on a
playground, and give 100% reliable results in about five minutes.
So, what our network is discussing right now, and planning for, are ways
that we can actually take these test kits into the community, where we will
hopefully be able to win the trust and confidence of ordinary citizens who
will allow themselves to be tested in a confidential manner--sometimes in
their own homes--and where we find that they are HIV negative, then we hope to
be able to give them the kind of counseling that will enable them to remain
HIV negative. Where we find that an individual is positive, then we hope to be
able to offer this effective treatment in those cases.
We feel this is the only way to short-circuit this epidemic and stop it:
early testing, widespread testing, of anybody in the population that has been
sexually active or otherwise at risk for the last 15-20 years.
{Q:} What has been the attitude of the FDA toward the work that you have
been doing? Have they tried to impede your work, or have they been helpful?
I'm interested in knowing how they're responding to Immunoviron work.
{A:} Of course, the FDA has not approved this medication as of yet. We have
begun the process for approval. We're in the very early stages of that.
We're trying to get on this fast track, because obviously it's possible for
people who have ineffective drugs that have very limited testing, to have
approval in a matter of months. We haven't discovered exactly where that fast
track exists, but we're searching for it.
Our experience so far with the FDA has been mixed. On the one hand, they in
fact seized a shipment of medication bound for the clinic from Kenya, on the
grounds that they considered it to be a dangerous medication. Our discussions
with them, over a few days' time, ultimately convinced them that this
medication was in no way a danger to any U.S. citizen, and in fact deserved to
be supported by the FDA. They seemed to adopt that position, and have been
somewhat cooperative, although not enthusiastically so, since that time.
We're hoping to go back to Kenya, because some of the data that we need for
the FDA application exist there. And once we're able to bring those data
back, we hope to advance our FDA application.
The Amsterdam Conference
{Q:} The mood that is coming out of the current World Health Organization
conference in Amsterdam, is without question one of despair. There is a
widespread admission that none of the treatments that the medical
establishment previously believed were promising treatments, has borne out the
initial hope that was attached to them. The research on finding a vaccine has
not progressed, and in fact the only thing that has progressed is the virus
itself.
In the midst of this kind of situation, you do have obviously a very
hopeful environment around low-dose Alpha-Interferon.
My question to you is how do you respond, or how would you respond, if you
had the opportunity to speak directly to the people who put out the statements
in this HHS report that you referred to earlier, how do you respond to those
who say that low-dose Alpha-Interferon simply doesn't work?
{A:} The way I would simply respond, is that they haven't looked at the
data that do exist. Nor have they honestly tried to replicate the work that
was done first in Kenya, but has now been done in several other places.
For example, the studies that have been carried out in the United States
that were cited in the HHS report and other studies done in Germany, Holland
(I believe), and a few other places, were not using the same medication that
was used in Kenya. So quite obviously, you cannot expect to get the results
obtained with substance A if you're using substance B. So we would
respectfully suggest, that they use the right stuff, and then second of all,
we would say that the method developed by the Kenyans, which seemed to be
effective in Kenya, ought to be adopted by all those who seek to replicate
their results.
We know, for example, that the methodology in the WHO study conducted in
six African centers was greatly flawed, even though they did use the same
medication--which by the way had reached the date of expiration--but they in
fact used the medication improperly.
Although Alpha-Inteferons are taken orally, that does not mean that it is
swallowed into the stomach. Orally in this case means that the medication is
absorbed by the oral mucosa, so it must be held in the mouth until it
dissolves, and then swished around for approximately 10 minutes. That's the
proper way the medication is taken.
So we believe that anyone who claims that the medication doesn't work,
either is (a) not using the same medication, or (b) is not following the
proper methodology. At the Abundant Life Clinic, we have adopted the right
medication, the proper methodology, and our results, at least preliminarily,
seem to mirror those reported from Kenya.
{Q:} Is the medical establishment incompetent, or are they consciously
trying to sabotage a hopeful new treatment, in your opinion?
{A:} Well, one wonders.
I think most of the doctors that I encounter in the United States, are just
honestly ignorant. They just don't know about these things, they haven't heard
about it through the usual channels in which they have confidence.
Now, those who control the channels of information, those who make the
decisions about what research gets done and what doesn't get done, and how
resources get expended--I am really coming to suspect that they are not
playing on the right side of this issue. It's almost as if the
political-medical establishment is in league with other circles in the
government, that quite definitely have adopted genocidal policies which are
apparent from other standpoints, and perhaps this is one more component of an
overall genocidal policy.
A Year From Now?
{Q:} Given the resources necessary and given an environment which is in
fact conducive to helping this treatment modality to progress, why don't you,
if you can, give our readers something of an idea. Best-case scenario: where
could we be a year from now?
{A:} A year from now, we could settle certain very important questions.
Number one, we could settle the basic issue of how effective multiple
sub-type Alpha-Interferon therapy actually is. Second of all, we could settle
quite clearly the issue of comparing the effectiveness of agents like AZT,
DDI, DDC, and Alpha-Interferons, and even get a long way towards learning
whether there's any particular benefit to be derived from a combination of
these different agents.
Thirdly, we would know a lot more about possible side-effects. Fourthly, we
would know a lot more about the proper dosing and I would say the intervals of
treatment and the categories of patients who might need to be treated
differently using these agents. It's quite clear that some patients only need
to be treated for six months; but there are probably other patients who need
to be treated longer than that. Quite possibly, there are patients who need a
very short course of treatment to remain symptom-free with this infection.
So those questions could certainly be answered in a very definitive fashion
in about 12 months. I think in addition to that, with the proper resources, we
could literally test millions of people, especially those who are in the
higher risk categories, in a year's time, and discover what the true
prevalence rate for this infection is, among the population. We could do that
in this country, we could do that in Haiti, we could do that in other islands
of the Caribbean and countries of Latin and South America, we could do that in
Africa.
I think the world has the resources. This approach is inherently
cost-effective, because anything that restores human beings to a productive
life, will prove itself to be cost-effective in the long run. What's lacking,
is the political and moral will on the part of leadership.
{Q:} That raises a very specific question. As you know, this publication
has been extremely critical of the AIDS policy that has emanated from this
administration and really from the health establishment internationally. I
don't want to get into it here, because we've covered it elsewhere in the
newspaper [see New Federalist Vol. VI, No. 30, Aug. 10--ed.], but there was a
tribute for you that was held here in the District, on July 11.
One of the things that was said at that tribute, was that now you have been
named the Minister of Health for the Nation of Islam. As Minister of Health of
the Nation of Islam, but of any nation--if you were in fact the health
minister or--we don't say health minister in the United States--Surgeon
General or Health and Human Services Secretary, what would your policy be? If
you had to shape an AIDS policy for an entire nation, in the condition that
our country is in now, what would you do?
{A:} Number one, we actually have to confront the problem. We have to get
past the denial that I think is so pervasive throughout the world, where
basically leaders of governments and governments are actually denying that the
problem exists. Then, number two, there needs to be a public re-education;
since so much mis-education has already occurred, we have to talk about
re-education, so that we truly understand the way in which epidemics spread
through populations, so that the public understands the specifics about this
particular pandemic, what puts a person at risk, what will protect individuals
in terms of behavior, and so on and so forth.
Then, number three, once the public is properly educated, they would be
quite willing to be tested, because I don't think there are many people who
wish to be irresponsible to themselves or irresponsible to those that they
love. So they would understand that the single most important piece of
information that they need to know about HIV, is their own individual HIV
status. And so we should make widespread testing available, and in fact
mandatory for the overall good of society.
Fourthly, we should then offer very specific post-testing counseling.
Specific counseling for those who test negative, and specific counseling for
those who test positive, so that they will be on the right course to maximize
a full and productive life after testing. Then, of course, determine how often
testing needs to be repeated for particular levels of risk that people have.
Fifthly, those who test positive need to be treated. They need to be given
the very best that we have to offer. Of course, in my opinion, right now, that
means Alpha-Interferon in conjunction with a number of other things, but
that's the very best treatment that is available today; in the future, of
course, that may change, as reserach provides other answers.
Number six, of course, is research itself. We must constantly review our
experience, constantly learn, we must constantly push back the frontiers of
knowledge, so that we're better able to take care of our population.
Point number seven would be that we've got to go into the manufacture and
distribution of a sufficient amount of medication, making it cheaply
available, hopefully, to those who need it. We cannot allow cost to be a
factor that prevents people from having access to medication. We've got to be
global in our approach to this epidemic. Obviously, no one in Africa can
really afford on an individual basis--looking at the per capita income of
sub-Saharan Africa--no one can afford any treatment, if you look at it from
that point of view.
But yet, it still needs to be made available; it needs to be made available
through the various governments and/or through international relief agencies
that are charged with these responsibilities.
So manufacture and distribution is essential; we have to have adequate
supplies of medication, to meet the worldwide demand--which the Harvard Public
School of Education estimates will be 120 million by the end of this century.
Of course, manufacturing and distribution mean that we have to allow a
change in policy to occur, so that Africa and Ibero-America and other sectors
of the developing world, will be permitted to have pharmaceutical industries,
so that they can have an adequate supply of Alpha-Interferons and other
medications that are necessary to save the lives of their people.
The next point would be that we must have a global approach to the problem;
we must be willing to cross borders. What I look forward to, in the
African-American community, is the time when we will recruit and train people
who will literally fan out across all the communities, testing people and
making available to them necessary information about treatment and doing the
same thing in Africa. If we do that, then we can literally save the lives of
40, 50, or 60 million people, who otherwise would die from the neglectful
policies that are in effect today.
{Q:} Dr. Alim, one of the things that has occurred here in Washington, is
that obviously, because of the tremendous promise of this program and the work
that you've done, there's been a lot of attention that has been given to the
clinic over the course of the last couple of months, especially. At the same
time, various elements in the city, most of them centered around the
Anti-Defamation League, have launched a really vicious attack on the work
that's being done here, and on the various public figures who are seeking more
information on the work that's being done here.
What do you think motivates this kind of attack?
{A:} I think what motivates it is evil. The Honorable Elijah Muhammad said
to us that the devil will never give you credit for your righteousness. So we
don't expect to receive credit from certain elements, who in fact have given
themselves over to the worship of death and other evil. The name of our clinic
tells what our perspective is: We believe in life and life more abundantly for
everybody. Obviously, everyone is not on that side of the equation. They are
pulling in the other direction, and so these are our natural opponents, and so
we expect them to do that which is written of them, just as we intend to do
that which is written of us.
{Q:} So you don't intend to stop doing what you're doing.
{A:} Of course not.
{Q:} We're happy to hear that. Do you have anything that you want to add?
{A:} I just want to thank you once again, and the people who are with Mr.
Lyndon LaRouche, for the excellent work that they have done over the years. I
have no way of expressing the debt of gratitude that I have for the work that
has been done by so many people who are associated with the New Federalist
newspaper or the Executive Intelligence Review, and other aspects of Mr.
LaRouche's movement, because he gave early warning of the threat of global
pandemics, when no one else was looking in this direction, and he has given
clear and consistent guidelines that should still be looked at by governments
all over the world. And if these guidelines were adopted, then it would go a
long way towards gaining control over this epidemic. So I just want to express
thanks and gratitude for Mr. LaRouche and those with him, for all that they've
done to help us win this war against AIDS.
{Q:} I thank you for taking the time with us today, and I hope that you'll
let us continue to follow the exciting work of this program.
{A:} Thank you.
reprinted with permission from
THE NEW FEDERALIST
subscriptions $35 per year
published weekly
P.O. box 889
Leesburg VA 22075